Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Second Circuit· 8/5/2016

United States v. Epskamp

Citations

  • 832 F.3d 154
  • 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14395
  • 2016 WL 4150900

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the statute then codified at 21 U.S.C. § 959(b
  • noting that when two provisions “would otherwise be duplicative” is “a most compelling indication” that they should be construed differently
  • noting that legislative history may be invoked for confirmatory purposes
  • rejecting narrow construction of extraterritoriality provision in 21 U.S.C. § 12 959 because it would cause “redundancy within the federal statutory 13 framework”
  • noting that legislative history may be invoked for confirmatory purposes
  • “A particular statute’s plain meaning can best be understood by looking to the statutory scheme as a whole and placing the particular provision within the context of that statute.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cabranes, Lohier, Straub

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Epskamp

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.